1. Homo Toxicus was directed by Carol Poliquin in 2008.
2. The main argument of the film is that our new methods of production are leaking toxins and pollutants that are causing serious health risks to humans and our environment.
3. The film goes through a series of case studies based in Canada of areas and products that contain these containments. A lot of scientific evidence is presented as well as the names of specific drugs and toxins. An interesting thing to note is that the film does elicit an emotional response from its audience, more of one than the previous film, Blind Spot. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that oil poses an issue in the future or cancer eventually, while the topic of this film relates toxins to human reproduction abilities which brings the topic into the present. A topic that relates to people’s ability to have sex will catch their attention faster than a prediction that they may develop cancer in thirty years.
4. The film draws out many different sustainability problems including political, legal, media, and educational issues.
5. One of the most compelling arguments in the film was when the woman got her blood tested and it registered the appearance of many different toxins. The film was also very clear to show that we can only see the effects of a toxin on a study of a large population and that it is difficult to determine what amount of which drug can cause a particular effect. The film was able to show the effects of specific toxins, or means of production, on large populations. Communities have children who have serious hearing damage, attention deficit or even an extremely low male population.
6. One thing that I was not convinced by was the film’s relation to food. They presented the issues with eating beef: it could have been injected with hormones that can mess with the human reproductive system. They presented the issues with eating fish: the fish digest mercury and other toxins and pollutants that are in the sea that we then ingest when we eat the fish. They presented the issues with eating fruits and vegetables: they can be sprayed with pesticides that are toxic to us and could alter our human reproductive system. They showed us issues with almost every type of food we can eat and yet never presented alternatives or ways to avoid all of these toxins that are in our food. They also tried to make the argument that beef that was injected with hormones can be linked to breast cancer, but the logical next step, or way to further prove this, would be to show that vegans have much lower rates of breast cancer than non-vegans but there are no studies on this.
7. One of the least compelling parts was that the film felt extremely Canadian. The scope was definitely for Canadians and tried to reach out towards some more global points, but it did not have a global impact feel. There were some references as to the discrepancy over banning various chemicals across the world, but the goal was to instruct Canadians about this danger. The audience definitely best addresses an adult Canadian audience.
8. To enhance its environmental educational value this film could have branched out and tried to cover more global effects or examples. Would a community in Europe have the same health effects from the same drug as a group of Canadians? Are there examples of this occurring? Also, it would be interesting to see if there are political stoppers to the global release of the harmfulness of certain drugs. In the film The Corporation, one drug company tried to silence the reporters from publicizing the dangerous effects of their drug. Are there examples of this happening on a more global scale?
9. A corrective action that we can take is to investigate if our beef has been injected with hormones and to try to purchase beef that was not. We can do the same with fish and try to buy fruits and vegetables from local farmers instead of food that has to be chemically treated to be preserved to travel long distances. We can also accept that certain foods may have to become seasonal foods. This may be the most difficult change because it is a cultural one. Our current culture says that if we want it, it is available to us and any deviation of this seems almost as a regression.
10. I attempted to research if there was a link to non-vegan diet and breast cancer. Most of what I found leaves non-conclusive results. This is frustrating because if the argument is that the hormone that cows are injected with leaks into the milk and beef they provide and then later causes breast cancer, the conclusion I would then like to make is that excluding milk and beef from one’s diet should help lower the rate of breast cancer but no such evidence is available. The reasons behind developing cancer have a lot of different factors and it is extremely difficult to isolate one specific cause. http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
At the end of the film, it mentions the USA’s Toxic Substances Control Act. It was written in 1976 and remains surprisingly short. It is also interesting and disturbing to note that food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides are generally excluded from the act. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html
Homo Toxicus 912
1. Homo Toxicus was directed by Carol Poliquin in 2008.
2. The main argument of the film is that our new methods of production are leaking toxins and pollutants that are causing serious health risks to humans and our environment.
3. The film goes through a series of case studies based in Canada of areas and products that contain these containments. A lot of scientific evidence is presented as well as the names of specific drugs and toxins. An interesting thing to note is that the film does elicit an emotional response from its audience, more of one than the previous film, Blind Spot. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that oil poses an issue in the future or cancer eventually, while the topic of this film relates toxins to human reproduction abilities which brings the topic into the present. A topic that relates to people’s ability to have sex will catch their attention faster than a prediction that they may develop cancer in thirty years.
4. The film draws out many different sustainability problems including political, legal, media, and educational issues.
5. One of the most compelling arguments in the film was when the woman got her blood tested and it registered the appearance of many different toxins. The film was also very clear to show that we can only see the effects of a toxin on a study of a large population and that it is difficult to determine what amount of which drug can cause a particular effect. The film was able to show the effects of specific toxins, or means of production, on large populations. Communities have children who have serious hearing damage, attention deficit or even an extremely low male population.
6. One thing that I was not convinced by was the film’s relation to food. They presented the issues with eating beef: it could have been injected with hormones that can mess with the human reproductive system. They presented the issues with eating fish: the fish digest mercury and other toxins and pollutants that are in the sea that we then ingest when we eat the fish. They presented the issues with eating fruits and vegetables: they can be sprayed with pesticides that are toxic to us and could alter our human reproductive system. They showed us issues with almost every type of food we can eat and yet never presented alternatives or ways to avoid all of these toxins that are in our food. They also tried to make the argument that beef that was injected with hormones can be linked to breast cancer, but the logical next step, or way to further prove this, would be to show that vegans have much lower rates of breast cancer than non-vegans but there are no studies on this.
7. One of the least compelling parts was that the film felt extremely Canadian. The scope was definitely for Canadians and tried to reach out towards some more global points, but it did not have a global impact feel. There were some references as to the discrepancy over banning various chemicals across the world, but the goal was to instruct Canadians about this danger. The audience definitely best addresses an adult Canadian audience.
8. To enhance its environmental educational value this film could have branched out and tried to cover more global effects or examples. Would a community in Europe have the same health effects from the same drug as a group of Canadians? Are there examples of this occurring? Also, it would be interesting to see if there are political stoppers to the global release of the harmfulness of certain drugs. In the film The Corporation, one drug company tried to silence the reporters from publicizing the dangerous effects of their drug. Are there examples of this happening on a more global scale?
9. A corrective action that we can take is to investigate if our beef has been injected with hormones and to try to purchase beef that was not. We can do the same with fish and try to buy fruits and vegetables from local farmers instead of food that has to be chemically treated to be preserved to travel long distances. We can also accept that certain foods may have to become seasonal foods. This may be the most difficult change because it is a cultural one. Our current culture says that if we want it, it is available to us and any deviation of this seems almost as a regression.
10. I attempted to research if there was a link to non-vegan diet and breast cancer. Most of what I found leaves non-conclusive results. This is frustrating because if the argument is that the hormone that cows are injected with leaks into the milk and beef they provide and then later causes breast cancer, the conclusion I would then like to make is that excluding milk and beef from one’s diet should help lower the rate of breast cancer but no such evidence is available. The reasons behind developing cancer have a lot of different factors and it is extremely difficult to isolate one specific cause.
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm
At the end of the film, it mentions the USA’s Toxic Substances Control Act. It was written in 1976 and remains surprisingly short. It is also interesting and disturbing to note that food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides are generally excluded from the act.
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html